A historian of medicine discovered a letter from 1834 that offers an unexpected parallel to today’s measles crisis. On September 23, Jane Butt, a mother from the village of Broughton, wrote to a London journal describing how measles had spread through her community. Her letter, found in the Medical Dissenter, a fringe publication from the 1830s, detailed 36 cases of measles among children, including her own. Some developed severe lung inflammation, but all recovered—an outcome she attributed to Morison’s pills, a purgative marketed by a merchant with no medical training.
The pills, promoted by followers of the Hygeist movement, were believed to purge “impure blood” and restore balance. Jane administered them frequently, sometimes twice daily, even to toddlers under two, and later gave them to newborns. The movement opposed physicians, whom Hygeists accused of harmful practices like bloodletting, a criticism with some basis in 19th-century medicine. Women like Jane, excluded from formal medical training, found a platform in these alternative networks.
By the time Jane wrote her letter, the Provincial Medical and Surgical Association, a precursor to the British Medical Association, had already formed, signaling the rise of professionalized medicine. Yet ordinary people continued to shape health care in ways that were often ignored. Jane’s letter appeared in a journal that also sold Morison’s pills, while mocking Edward Jenner’s smallpox vaccine, then gaining traction. The Medical Dissenter operated as one of the official depots for the pills in 1837, blending commerce with medical dissent.
Measles Outbreaks Then
The historian, who had studied measles in historical records before, was struck by the letter’s timing. In 2026, the U.S. is experiencing its worst measles outbreak since 1991, with over 4,500 cases already reported. Vaccination rates have fallen below the 92.4% threshold needed to prevent outbreaks, and some communities have exemption rates exceeding 4%. The resurgence mirrors Jane’s era, when medical authority clashed with public distrust, though today’s skepticism targets vaccines rather than purgatives.
Jane’s method of counting cases was unusual for her time. Most medical records focused on individual treatments, not broader patterns. Yet her approach reflected an early shift toward empiricism, where tracking illness helped communities respond. By the mid-19th century, physicians and officials would formalize this into epidemiology. Jane’s letter also reveals how women’s voices were sidelined: her endorsement of a discredited cure earned her a headline, while her observations were dismissed as unprofessional.
Echoes in Modern Movements
The historian noted that Jane’s story resonates with today’s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, which blends anti-vaccine sentiment with broader grievances against medical authority. Many MAHA supporters are mothers who feel dismissed by physicians, echoing Jane’s frustration. The movement capitalizes on a long-standing tension: ordinary people have always shaped health care, but their insights are often marginalized when they conflict with institutional medicine.
Jane’s letter ends with a practical detail: she counted recoveries, not failures. Without a control group, children who did not take the pills, she could not prove the treatment’s efficacy. Most measles cases in 1834 resolved on their own, yet she credited the pills. The historian drew a parallel to modern vaccine hesitancy: parents rejecting proven protection mirror Jane’s error in reverse, trusting untested claims over science.
Shaping American Health
The letter’s discovery came as the historian worked on a book about how ordinary people influenced American health care. Jane’s case illustrates a broader truth: medical knowledge has never been the sole domain of professionals. Her story, though flawed, shows how communities have long documented illness, whether through prayer, counting cases, or challenging authority.
The historian left the Yale library that day with a PDF of Jane’s letter, her name now preserved in a way it never was in the 19th century. The historian wonders if medical authority had listened to women like Jane sooner, today’s health debates might look different.
